Russell Marks v. Warden Jose Vasquez, No. 05-15708 (11th Cir. 2006)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 05-15708 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ March 15, 2006 THOMAS K. KAHN CLERK D. C. Docket No. 05-00011-CV-2 RUSSELL MARKS, Petitioner-Appellant, versus WARDEN JOSE VASQUEZ, Respondent-Appellee. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia _________________________ (March 15, 2006) Before TJOFLAT, DUBINA and HULL, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: On April 16, 1993, the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri, having accepted petitioner s plea of guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and one count of conspiracy to launder money, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, sentenced petitioner to prison for life.1 After unsuccessfully exhausting his remedies on direct appeal from his conviction, and under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and Fed. R. Crim. P. 36, he petitioned the district court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, for a writ of habeas corpus vacating his sentence and conviction.2 On August 15, 2005, after considering the Warden s response and petitioner s submissions, the district court on August 15, 2005, entered an order denying the petition. Petitioner now appeals. We find no merit in this appeal. The district court s order of August 15 constitutes a proper application of the law to the allegations of the petition. AFFIRMED. 1 The court s judgment indicates that petitioner was sentenced to a total term life. We assume that the court sentenced petitioner to concurrent terms of life imprisonment on the § 846 count and five years on the § 371 count. 2 Petitioner filed the petition in the Southern District of Georgia because he was incarcerated in Georgia at the time. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.